Mack sued Lott alleging false imprisonment. The circuit court found for Mack after a bench trial and awarded him damages. The panel remanded. It held that the findings of fact about probable cause were insufficient as they did not determine if the arresting officer reasonably believed Mack was off the property of the nightclub and thus subject to arrest for assault.
Williams appealed his sex abuse convictions arguing the trial court improperly excluded evidence that one of the victims had been abused by another person. The panel affirmed. It held that the evidence of abuse of one victim was not relevant here as the defense intended to use the past abuse to challenge another victim’s knowledge of sexual matters, the past acts were different from the abuse alleged against Williams and there was no evidence that the two victims ever discussed the past abuse. It also held the fact that the victims’ mother lied on an intake form was collateral to the issues of Williams’ guilt and the trial court properly refused to allow Williams’ attorney to examine the mother about those lies.
Precision brought a declaratory judgment action seeking coverage for monies lost when Precision had to remove part of a brick wall to repair a seal behind it. The circuit court found no coverage and eth panel affirmed. It held that Precision’s repair of the seal and the removal of the brick wall to do so fell within the “your work” exclusion as the claim was for property restored, repaired or replaced and the work was performed by Precision. The panel also held that the insurance contract was unambiguous and the circuit court therefore did not need to construe it in favor of Precision.